Chronogenesis II

[AV1611VET]

Would someone do me a favor please, and put these in chronological order according to the Big Bang paradigm:

1. earth
2. water
3. light
4. firmament [atmosphere on earth]
5. land
6. grass
7. [angiosperms]
8. stars
9. moon
10. [first] aquatic life
11. birds
12. whales
13. cattle
14. insects
15. man
16. woman

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Would someone do me a favor please, and put these in chronological order according to the Big Bang paradigm:

1. earth
2. water
3. light
4. firmament [atmosphere on earth]
5. land
6. grass
7. [angiosperms]
8. stars
9. moon
10. [first] aquatic life
11. birds
12. whales
13. cattle
14. insects
15. man
16. woman

I'll have a try. I think this is about right.
light
stars
water (in the universe)
earth/water on earth/land/atmosphere (firmament is meaningless)
moon
first aquatic life
insects
angiosperms/birds
grass
whales
Modern humans (if that is what you mean by man and woman)

PS There were plants long before there were angiosperms and I don't if by water you mean H2O or liquid water.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll have a try. I think this is about right.

Thank you, sir --- I appreciate it.

 

[Split Rock]

Would someone do me a favor please, and put these in chronological order according to the Big Bang paradigm:

1. earth
2. water
3. light
4. firmament [atmosphere on earth]
5. land
6. grass
7. [angiosperms]
8. stars
9. moon
10. [first] aquatic life
11. birds
12. whales
13. cattle
14. insects
15. man
16. woman

Trick question! None of these are part of the "Big Bang" paradigm. Do I win a doll?

 

[tcampen]

The fact that the biblical account of creation fails to align with reality doesn't mean much to those of us who don't take the myth as literal truth anyway.

It you're trying to point this distiction between reality and this aspect of the bible, then fine. But what's your point about it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Trick question! None of these are part of the "Big Bang" paradigm. Do I win a doll?

Boys shouldn't play with dolls --- it'll stunt their growth.

 

[pgp_protector]

Boys shouldn't play with dolls --- it'll stunt their growth.

Never had GI Joe ?

 

[AV1611VET]

It you're trying to point this distiction between reality and this aspect of the bible, then fine. But what's your point about it?

It's a pet theory of mine that God purposely created the universe in the "wrong" order --- knowing that in the end times, there would arise a paradigm against this order, that is based on observation only.

In other words, the fact that the order of Creation according to Genesis One is so different than the order according to atheistic paradigms; it makes Genesis One stand out more, and gives more weight to the Creation being an act of God, rather than an act of nature.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Thank you, sir --- I appreciate it.

You are welcome. I should point out that we really don't know exatly when angiosperms evolved or birds for that matter but I think both are about late Jurassic. I suppose it depends on exactly what you call a bird. There are other here who know more about that than I do. Of course grasses are angiosperms but probably weren't the first angiosperms. At least some primative grasses seem to have been around in the Cretaceous based on analysis of fossilized dinosaur poop.

I assumed by the Big Bang paradigm you the chronology of standard science. The Big Bang part is really only relevant to light and stars. Ironically Fred Hoyle, who was an atheist who beleived in a steady state universe coined the term Big Bang as a term of derision at least partly because he didn't like the religious conotations of the universe having a defined beginning.

 

[AV1611VET]

Never had GI Joe ?

I never considered him a "doll" per se --- more like an "action figure."

I also had Stonewall Jackson.

(Accessories sold separately.)

 

[pgp_protector]

Though Question AV1611Vet.

In Genesis 1. We Have Light being created, but Not Darkness correct ? If so how can there be Darkness in Gods Presence.

Also in Genesis 1:4 We have Light Being Divided From Darkness, but the same thing happens again (Light Divided from Darkness) On Day 4.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

1:1 8and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are welcome. I should point out that we really don't know exatly when angiosperms evolved or birds for that matter but I think both are about late Jurassic.

Ya --- I knew what you meant when you put the angiosperms and birds together on the same line.

Thanks, again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Though Question AV1611Vet.

In Genesis 1. We Have Light being created, but Not Darkness correct ? If so how can there be Darkness in Gods Presence.

Also in Genesis 1:4 We have Light Being Divided From Darkness, but the same thing happens again (Light Divided from Darkness) On Day 4.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

1:1 8and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

If I remember correctly, you can't see light unless it strikes and illuminates an object; and even then it would have to enter your eye in the first place.

A camera floating in space just before God said, "Let there be light," would show absolutely nothing.

The light in Genesis 1:4 --- IMO --- is the Electromagnetic Spectrum.

 

[BrainHertz]

It's a pet theory of mine that God purposely created the universe in the "wrong" order --- knowing that in the end times, there would arise a paradigm against this order, that is based on observation only.

In other words, the fact that the order of Creation according to Genesis One is so different than the order according to atheistic paradigms; it makes Genesis One stand out more, and gives more weight to the Creation being an act of God, rather than an act of nature.

Interesting. The thing that instantly jumped out at me when I read this is that you have constructed a rationalization which is entirely non-falsifiable. Why is that?

 

[Vene]

Interesting. The thing that instantly jumped out at me when I read this is that you have constructed a rationalization which is entirely non-falsifiable. Why is that?

So it can't be shown to be false. Sure, it's impossible to prove (yeah, I know, for math and alcohol), but that means nothing when you have a book on your side.

 

[Greeble]

I never considered him a "doll" per se --- more like an "action figure."

I also had Stonewall Jackson.

(Accessories sold separately.)

they had Stonewall 'action figures'?

How about General Sherman?

Admit it, they are dolls!

 

[AV1611VET]

they had Stonewall 'action figures'?

I'm sorry --- I remember now --- it was Daniel Boone - (Fess Parker).

Complete with coonskin cap and flintlock rifle.

 

[Greeble]

I'm sorry --- I remember now --- it was Daniel Boone - (Fess Parker).

Complete with coonskin cap and flintlock rifle.

Good 'ol Fess Parker.

BTW:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/timeline.html

 

[Psudopod]

It's a pet theory of mine that God purposely created the universe in the "wrong" order --- knowing that in the end times, there would arise a paradigm against this order, that is based on observation only.

In other words, the fact that the order of Creation according to Genesis One is so different than the order according to atheistic paradigms; it makes Genesis One stand out more, and gives more weight to the Creation being an act of God, rather than an act of nature.

But (assuming that god created everything), the only reason that a theory based on observation could get the order so wrong is if the evidence points that way. In other words god must have set it up to look completely different to what actually happened.

Why do that? Why set up this completely self consistent Matrix-esque reality, allow people to develope a method to understand it, learn from it and gain useful technology from it? Why give humans the capacity to learn about the great creation if all we're ever going to have access to is the screensaver?

 

[pgp_protector]

It's a pet theory of mine that God purposely created the universe in the "wrong" order --- knowing that in the end times, there would arise a paradigm against this order, that is based on observation only.

In other words, the fact that the order of Creation according to Genesis One is so different than the order according to atheistic paradigms; it makes Genesis One stand out more, and gives more weight to the Creation being an act of God, rather than an act of nature.

Sounds Deceptive.